An analysis of hearing aid use: data logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire

Watts, Tessa ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1201-5192, Arthur, Jonathan, Davies, Ruth, Slater, Julie and Jones, Philip 2016. An analysis of hearing aid use: data logging as an adjunct with the Glasgow Hearing Benefit Profile Questionnaire. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 49 , pp. 27-33.

Preview

PDF - Published Version Download (601kB) | Preview

Abstract

Introduction: There is significant variability in the ways in which hearing aid use is reported. In part, this is because there is no agreed method of reporting hearing aid use. A recent review by Perez and Edmonds (2012) concluded that a dual-stage approach using data-logging and self-reported outcome measures is preferable to an approach that uses one method alone. A dual-stage approach may provide a comprehensive understanding of hearing aid use and help further develop a detailed understanding of some of the problems associated with non-use or under-use. Objective: This study aimed to compare the relationship of self-reported hearing aid use using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile questionnaire (GHABP; Gatehouse, 1999) to hearing aid data-logging information, and to establish whether the GHABP can be used to accurately measure hearing aid use. Methods: This was an observational cohort study conducted in Wales, United Kingdom. A total of 119 participants were recruited at their hearing aid follow-up appointments. The length of time between hearing aid fitting and follow-up was variable. With participants’ consent, data were collected using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile part 2 questionnaire and data-logging information stored in the hearing aid. Correlational analyses were used to assess the relationships between the two measures of hearing aid use. Results: Mean data-logging use was 5.87 hours per day (SD=5.15) and the mean GHABP use was 67.34% (SD=32.98). Both “use” variables failed a Shapiro Wilks test of normality. There was a strong positive Pearson rho correlation between data-logging use and GHABP use (rs, = .645, p<0.01). Analysis of the GHABP questionnaire revealed that 53 participants stated that they used their hearing aids between 81% and 100% of the time. There were some low levels of use when examining data-logging in the context of variable GHABP results. Conclusions: In participants who present higher GHABP use scores with lower levels of data-logging use, some plausible reasons include: I) Inadvertent overestimation of their use by patients (recall error), 2) The GHABP questionnaire may not be sufficiently sensitive or structured in such a way to effectively measure use. For example, “listening in a quiet environment” is not captured in a GHABP question, or 3) The reporting of use as a percentage may not be an appropriate measure of use. For this reason, in keeping with Perez and Edmonds (2012), both self-reported measures of use and data-logging should be used together and audiologists are reminded to consider both measures with some level of caution.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Healthcare Sciences
Publisher:	The Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology
ISSN:	0149-8886
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	19 September 2018
Last Modified:	02 May 2023 13:56
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/115055

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item